{"id":1660,"date":"2018-02-09T22:55:08","date_gmt":"2018-02-09T22:55:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quicktransportsolutions.com\/blog\/?p=1660"},"modified":"2018-02-09T22:55:08","modified_gmt":"2018-02-09T22:55:08","slug":"crazy-happenings-in-the-world-of-ghg-phase-2-and-trailers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quicktransportsolutions.com\/blog\/crazy-happenings-in-the-world-of-ghg-phase-2-and-trailers\/","title":{"rendered":"Crazy Happenings In The World Of GHG Phase 2 And Trailers"},"content":{"rendered":"

While they may initially seem like not-too-exciting topics, GHG Phase 2 rules and trailers have been heating up in the news lately. Court filings have begun to stack up as GHG Phase 2 rules are challenged on trailer-related provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[wp_ad_camp_2]<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The newest of these came in the form of an October 12 filing<\/a>, in which the Environmental Defense Fund, along with a coalition of health advocacy groups, asked that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reject another motion filed by the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA).<\/p>\n

The statement released by the group argued that the Phase 2 trailer provision motion to stay \u201cattempts to artificially divide the tractor from the trailer to claim that TTMA\u2019s members cannot be regulated directly because they are not manufacturers of motor vehicles.\u201d<\/p>\n

The group went on to note that the TTMA \u201chas likewise failed to demonstrate that its members will be irreparably harmed absent a stay of standards that simply require manufacturers to equip more of their trailers with widely used technologies that deliver fuel savings.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, What\u2019s the Deal?<\/strong><\/p>\n

As you likely know, business people really dislike uncertainty. And they got a full dose of it when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would potentially roll back the trailer and glider kit provisions spelled out in the GHG Phase two fuel efficiency regulations.<\/p>\n

Jointly written by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and put to paper October of 2016, GHG Phase 2 was designed to reduce carbon emissions. It builds on the work previously completed on GHG Phase 1 regulations.<\/p>\n

As the rule is laid out, Phase two rules were set to go into effect for trailers beginning in January of 2018. Limitation of glider kit production began last January. The rule also spells out how manufacturers should design equipment for the next decade. The goal of the rule was to reach emissions reductions by cutting the amount of fuel burned while sidelining older technologies \u2013 thus clearing the way for newer, more fuel-efficient technologies.<\/p>\n

The change comes in the form of an August announcement from both the EPA and NHTSA that they may in fact reconsider the rules. Specifically, targeted were regulations regarding box-type trailers. This definition includes dry and refrigerated freight and glider kits.<\/p>\n

While neither agency has come out with specifics on what a potential rollback may look like, they have clearly laid out there intent to review the rules, which are set to go into effect in less than 60 days. This is where the uncertainty question comes in.<\/p>\n

The original fight started when the TTMA filed a lawsuit in December of 2016 requesting that the D.C. Circuit throw out the trailer section of the GHG Phase 2 rule set to go into effect in January 2018.<\/p>\n

In their initial argument, TTMA stated that \u201cmost heavy-duty trailers are custom-ordered, and the required lead time for scheduling production means that trailer manufacturers are having to quote orders for 2018 delivery that will force customers to purchase equipment they do not want and that will not produce any fuel efficiencies in the customers\u2019 operations.”<\/p>\n

The case has also been joined by California \u2013 who we will talk more about later \u2013 and Connecticut, Washington, Vermont, Iowa, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Oregon and Vermont. In a joint statement released by the EDF, associated groups and the states represented, the groups stated that granting a stay of the rule would \u201cdelay these critical health and environmental protections for the duration of the litigation, which could last for years.\u201d<\/p>\n

The attorney representing the groups released a separate stating that \u201cthe trailer provisions of the [GHG Phase 2] Clean Truck Standards are based on cost-effective and widely available measures that have long been used by industry leaders, and have been effectively incorporated into state standards for the past decade. It is critical that these common-sense protections remain in place to reduce the dangerous pollution that causes climate change and save money for American families by reducing the costs for shipping goods.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the same time, the TTMA has been hard at work lobbying on behalf of regulatory relief across the board where trucking rules are concerned. Still, neither agency involved has yet taken any action, despite notifying the TTMA that they agree further rulemaking is needed.<\/p>\n

Despite the recent litigation, many companies are operating as though there will be no change. In fact, most large fleets have already invested a lot of time and energy into complying with a rule most in the industry expected to stay intact. Still, that doesn\u2019t mean everyone is on board.<\/p>\n

The Trailer Industry Speaks Out<\/strong><\/p>\n

The trailer industry itself has had mixed reactions to the news. While one manufacturer was quotes in a news outlet as saying that they \u201cWe are encouraged by the EPA\u2019s decision to reconsider the trailer provision in the GHG2 regulation,\u201d others have complained that they need more certainty, for both them and their customers. Not knowing what equipment to include or not include puts some manufacturers in a bind.<\/p>\n

Still, the TTMA couldn\u2019t be more pleased by the news, arguing that the rule puts onerous requirements on trailer manufacturers whether the benefits of said requirements are proven or not. They specifically mention:<\/p>\n